Hi Peter, Just to make sure, we are talking about the 85-205/3.8, not the 75-205/3.5 or 3.8? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California "Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film."
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Vivitar zoom question > In a way it's a find. It shared the same optical formula with the first > legendary 70-210 f3.5 S1. I don't think it was multi coated since it seemed to > suffer from an inordinate amount of flair. If I remember correctly there > was also a special matched multiplier available for that lens which was nice > to have in a pinch. (It is a lot more compact than the Series 1 due to > it's slightly slower max aperture and two touch design, but still relatively > ruggedly built). I happen to have it's little brother a 70-150 same > optical formula and I have the MM for that which gives you a lot of lens > in a very small package, the 75-205 isn't a lot bigger as I recall. > > At 05:00 AM 1/18/2003 -0800, you wrote: > >All this recent talk of Vivitars has elicited a couple of questions... > > > >Not long ago, I won a bid on eBay for a very nice but older Pentax > >body and accessories. > >Among the pile was this NEW M-42 Vivitar zoom, 85 to 205mm, f/3.8 to 22.0. > >This was a sort of 'throw in' item, as I was really buying the body, > >not all the lenses... > >Apparently the seller was getting rid of all his M-42 gear, so he more > >or less threw it in. > > > >In the meanwhile, I got to thinking about it. > >On a long list of non-Pentax M-42 lenses I recently reviewed, it seems > >that particular focal length has not been repeated by Vivitar nor any > >of the others in the business. > >And Vivitar has apparently only made one of that model. They make > >other ranges of zooms that repeat focal lengths, but not in 85-205mm. > > > >Does anyone have any idea if anyone has tested this lens, or has other > >data on it? > > > >I plan to do some of my own testing, of course, but in the > >meanwhile...the focal length is sort of an oddball, and I wondered > >about it. > > > >Thanks, all... > > > >keith whaley > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx >
